Following into falls or: How I Learned to Stop Worrying and Love the Sinkhole

[BadSkeelz]

Pretty sure every clan in the game has had a group or wagon or baby carriage go off a cliff at some point.

[RogueGunslinger]

Moral of the story: Don't want to fall down holes, don't follow leaders who will take you that close to unstable ground.

That's not a good moral to be teaching, since it basically says "don't join any clan where you might theoretically be put under someone who will walk into a hole."

Actually, yes this is exactly what I'm saying. If you are in a clan that likely will take you near crumbling, unstable rock, you are in a very dangerous situation. And in that case, then you are right, don't join that clan if you have concerns about being put such dangerous situations.

But my stance is predicated on not looking at this as a "Lemmings incident" but rather a broader ICly explained roleplay of something such as what I described. E.g. the cliff edge crumbled away, causing a massive collapse.

You can literally explain anything away like that. That doesn't make it fun, or logical, or interesting, or compelling in any way. And this is a game we're playing, and a story we're trying to tell. And what you're suggesting never happens. People don't come up with clever IC reasons when stupid shit like this happens. They ignore it, avoid the topic IC, and pretend that shit never happened. When people talk about or describe the event it's always just "The crew fell into a hole and died, it fucking sucks." not "The crew got to close to a cliff, and I swear by my balls, Amos, a fucking Roc flew down from the sky straight at us and the power of whira comin' of his wings was so strong it blew us all off the edge!"

And there's a reason for that. Everyone can't make up their own special narrative for what happened, because they might conflict, and there's no DM to tell you "This is the fun story-telling version of what happened to your characters!"

[Asanadas]

The whole "let's explain this flawed OOC code implementation through some creative IC narrative" only prolongs and enables these sorts of situations.

No matter how hard you try: you know, staff knows, and every other player knows that the IC reasoning you're trying to sell is a convenient lie.

[BadSkeelz]

I'm pretty sure the first time I was taken outside the gates by my Corporal, she pointed up the North Road and said "there's a sinkhole that way. If you fall in you'll die."

Taught me to avoid that side of the City, yup yup.

[Harmless]

teh old north rode is totally safe, u can speedwalk it and u will end up in loorz, the dirs are n;n;n;n;n;ne;n;n;n;enln;;nlnl lololol     

just trying to counter all the free IC sekrits being given away lately lol. bootstrapz ppls!


(sorry, couldn't resist)

[Jingo]

Guise I been whining about this for like years an' years.

[Clearsighted]

I'm starting up this thread as a discussion topic for a certain pervasive problem where you'll follow your leader into what is probably certain death like you're a brain-dead lemming, and likely subsequently die/be horribly injured through no fault of your own besides incidentally poor clan choice. I'd suggest a mod move the posts from the other thread into here, but aren't they spread out over multiple pages and a pain in the butt to do? Whatever.

Anyway, I suggest code like the merchant's gate that is added to climbing and falling code. If following someplace would put you over a fall, you stop and think about it. If following someplace would make you climb, you stop and think about it.

The best solution to this problem is to not follow anyone around the wastes who doesn't know what they're doing. And certainly don't stake your life, and those of others on it, unless you're all good climbers. And remember you can 'dismount beetle' in midair.

That said. Making it ask for confirmation before lurching over an obvious death fall, would not be entirely amiss. But then, it seems to happen regardless, even in places where that coded request for confirmation exists.

This is a perfect example for how players and characters, who can keep their heads in the wastes and know the terrain, are a god send to any clan.

[CodeMaster]

The problem with the "easy fix" solution of making all the fall exits "down" is that then, even if your character can't see the room description, s/he'll never fall down the hole (unless it's perfectly dark).  It also devalues the "climb" skill and subsequently the guilds that come with it.

These rooms aren't littered around in the city, or the merchant's quarter.  They're scattered across what is described as an unforgiving, desolate landscape.  There should be some element of danger, even to a PC whose owner can grab a coffee during a fight with a mekillot.

To me, walking a character out along a cliff face when you know you're one typo away from death is as chilling as a ballsy journeyman steal attempt on a nobleman.  It makes your hands sweat IRL, keeps your fingers light on the keys.  This is a good thing, in my opinion.  But I know it's not for everyone.

Nevertheless, it breaks my heart to hear about people who died because they followed their leader off a cliff.  It happened to me!  It may not be the leader's fault OOCly (a mistake is a mistake) but it is the leader's fault ICly for not establishing a better protocol for navigating these areas.  Unhitch everyone or tell them to break off (to signify breaking stride, spreading out, or whatever) and move room, by room, by room.

If you're a follower, ask your leader if you can break stride near those perilous cliffs he's speedwalking you past.  If he says no, I recommend mutiny.

[Clearsighted]

 Unhitch everyone or tell them to break off (to signify breaking stride, spreading out, or whatever) and move room, by room, by room.

If you're a follower, ask your leader if you can break stride near those perilous cliffs he's speedwalking you past.  If he says no, I recommend mutiny.

This is also great advice, and something I forgot to mention in my own post. People get too used to 'following' each other around. You can and should learn to operate together, while not having to be in each other's pockets.

[Incognito]

I have a decent solution for this:

nosave ride off
You will not follow the leader into climb-check rooms
BUT
You will not get the automatic benefit of the leader's direction sense

nosave ride on
You will automatically get the benefit of the leader's direction sense
BUT
You will also follow the leader into climb-check rooms

This will give each individual follower the choice to decide whether s/he want to blindly follow the leader or not.

Seems like a fair trade off too - if you can ride well enough - you won't blindly follow the leader and consequently won't follow into a climb-check room. Alternatively, if you are a sucky rider and NEED the leader's guidance to traverse the terrain - then you will follow the leader into a climb-check room.

[ghostymudy]

I play the game for fun, such as dying an interesting death possibly with some fun rp.

"You plummet to the ground" out of nowhere because you forgot to look north just that one room isn't fun. I Could get into how unrealistic it is but the baseline is that I want to play a fun game, not desertwank simulator: sandy crack and death pits ahoy.

Sure, you should be able to fall into a pit if the sandstorm means you can't see the room or if you fail direction sense but I'm not going to walk into a pit when I can see 10' ahead.

[SuchDragonWow]

I finally have a character with whom I enjoy falling down 6 room drops.

[Lizzie]

I have a decent solution for this:

nosave ride off
You will not follow the leader into climb-check rooms
BUT
You will not get the automatic benefit of the leader's direction sense

nosave ride on
You will automatically get the benefit of the leader's direction sense
BUT
You will also follow the leader into climb-check rooms

This will give each individual follower the choice to decide whether s/he want to blindly follow the leader or not.

Seems like a fair trade off too - if you can ride well enough - you won't blindly follow the leader and consequently won't follow into a climb-check room. Alternatively, if you are a sucky rider and NEED the leader's guidance to traverse the terrain - then you will follow the leader into a climb-check room.

I like the idea, but would say "nosave follow" instead of "nosave ride" because elves.

[Synthesis]

There is no reason to propose a tradeoff-type solution, here.

It's a stupid, pointless problem that only needs to be fixed.  There's no reason to make people "pay" to avoid it.

[valeria]

I actually like this a lot.  I don't see it as a trade off solution. If you're relying on someone to lead you through a sand storm and they lead you off a cliff, so be it. But if you're just following them across the desert, you should see that cliff coming up. The storm has to be pretty egregious for you to be relying on someone else's direction sense, anyway.

[SuchDragonWow]

It doesn't make a lot of sense if you're not riding.  It actually makes no sense at all.

[SuchDragonWow]

I should add that I don't think we should ruin one of Armageddon's best tropes.  The Shield Wall is famous for dead Bynners and wagon crashes. 

[Incognito]

There is no reason to propose a tradeoff-type solution, here.

It's a stupid, pointless problem that only needs to be fixed.  There's no reason to make people "pay" to avoid it.

So, this would translate to something like - your PC is unable to navigate the terrain on his/her own, and you need someone to explicitly guide you through it, but, when the leader who has you in tow makes a wrong turn somewhere, you somehow manage to not follow the leader......

It doesn't make a lot of sense if you're not riding.  It actually makes no sense at all.

If you're following someone - to make use of their Direction Sense, then you are in fact blindly following them - and deserve to follow them if they head into a climb-check room.

On the other hand, if you're not following someone for their Direction Sense, then you're realistically following at a safer distance - and should not follow them into a climb-check room.

The logic behind proposing a trade-off here - is to allow PCs to choose one way or another.

If I have a PC who has a decent grasp of finding my own way around the terrain and am not relying on the leader's guidance - then I shouldn't realistically fall off a cliff just because the person ahead of me decided to leap off.

If I have a PC who can't navigate the terrain for shit - and am relying on someone to explicitly guide me - then realistically I should follow him off a cliff.

You can't have it both ways.

I think this should be valid regardless of whether you're riding or not. Either you are having the leader guide you or not. That's the basic point.

Of course - the alternative is to keep things as they are - and carry on.

This was just a proposed alternative, that could work and be fair to all around - at the same time AND be realistic at the same time as well.

[Synthesis]

I actually like this a lot.  I don't see it as a trade off solution. If you're relying on someone to lead you through a sand storm and they lead you off a cliff, so be it. But if you're just following them across the desert, you should see that cliff coming up. The storm has to be pretty egregious for you to be relying on someone else's direction sense, anyway.

Yes, it's a trade-off.

Benefit:  you don't -automatically- go over the cliff.

Risk:  you might -accidentally- go over the cliff if you fail your direction sense.

If I have a PC who can't navigate the terrain for shit - and am relying on someone to explicitly guide me - then realistically I should follow him off a cliff.

Yeaaaaah.  No.  Going to have to agree to disagree, here.

[RogueGunslinger]

Makes me wonder if many of you have ever been near cliff in real life. You've got to do something pretty fucking stupid to fall off one. Even more so if you just watched someone else fall off first.

[Narf]

Makes me wonder if many of you have ever been near cliff in real life. You've got to do something pretty fucking stupid to fall off one. Even more so if you just watched someone else fall off first.

Does it count as really stupid if you want to get a good look at the dust cloud rise as they land? Cause Idaknow, I think that's legit.

[Incognito]

If I have a PC who can't navigate the terrain for shit - and am relying on someone to explicitly guide me - then realistically I should follow him off a cliff.

Yeaaaaah.  No.  Going to have to agree to disagree, here.

Makes me wonder if many of you have ever been near cliff in real life. You've got to do something pretty fucking stupid to fall off one. Even more so if you just watched someone else fall off first.

Following a leader off a cliff - on Zalanthas - is a combination of various conditions:
Weather
Terrain
Your riding skill level
Whether you have Direction Sense or not, and if yes, how high of a level

I agree with RogueGunslinger - in RL, falling off a cliff is something that can be pretty much avoided.

When I think of following someone off a cliff on Zalanthas though - I see it as being in a low visibility/high wind situation, with lack of knowledge of said terrain, and then following someone off a small sand dune that has a huge crevice or sharp fall on the other side.  - i.e. - a situation where you can't actually see/know that there's a sheer drop off the other side.

If you were on a mesa - and could see the edge of the mesa - then I'd agree that you probably shouldn't ride off the mesa's edge with the leader.

Maybe this could be something Staff might want to look into and bifurcate :-
a) Clearly demarcated and visible falls - that can be avoided - even while following a leader.
b) Not clearly visible and avoidable pitfalls - that can't be avoided - if you're following a leader.

Having said this - I dont realistically see this happening coz it'd be a pretty huge and cumbersome exercise.

[Delirium]

I've been thinking about it, and this is my problem with how code works around pitfalls:

It feels like a punishment to the player, rather than a believable IC consequence.

More to the point, it feels like a snickery "gotcha". "LOL he didn't pick up on the hints in that description! GOTCHA!"

There are also cases where the room has been built improperly, such as a lack of indication in the direction or night-time description, when it is even more of an OOC issue. There are also cases where rooms that LOOK like they should be climb rooms aren't - and vice versa.

Adding a confirmation for any climb/fall room would fix that problem. >n! vs >n works great.

Then, if you truly do get swept off the edge, thrown off the edge, or climb over the edge... it's an actual in-character consequence.

[Delirium]

Pretty sure every clan in the game has had a group or wagon or baby carriage go off a cliff at some point.

The most maddening was when it was a room that wasn't very obvious it was a pitfall ahead - just a vague hint at the end of the description. Having the PC suffer in-character consequences and slander ("they crashed it on purpose!") because the PLAYER didn't understand a vague hint in a previously safe location was pretty sour.

[Armaddict]

Still a straight no to any sort of coded protection for entering climb or fall rooms.  I didn't even realize that we did it for the shield wall, and -that- is ridiculous to me.

Still a pretty cool yes to making it so that no one follows into one and people have to enter it one at a time.

Edited:  The current line of thinking from people seems to be 'I, the player, should be allowed to make mistakes of what I do in game without suffering consequences.' or 'I, the player, should have coded safeguards against making mistakes.'  You use different words, but...that is, essentially, what you're saying, right?